58

Even though this is a very very minor issue, I still think it is an issue. (And I don't think this is a duplicate as the possible duplicate is while this issue is obviously not status-completed as it happened "just now").

If you have the correct timing when there's a new day on a Stack Exchange site, you can get the DVLR message to say "Daily vote limit reached; vote again just now." which just doesn't sound grammatically correct. "just now" is normally used for things that has already happened.

Daily vote limit reached; vote again just now.

A better message would be: "Daily vote limit reached; vote again now." or "Daily vote limit reached; vote again momentarily." (which is the same message as what is shown shortly before this message can appear)

  • 31
    +1 just for the timing involved in generating this! – Nick Stauner Mar 9 '14 at 0:48
  • 3
    That timing is just before the daily resets. Happens at 15 odd minutes past GMT 0000. – Achrome Mar 9 '14 at 0:55
  • 2
    Haha, I didn't tag this as a bug thinking that I would get down-voted, or not many up-votes because the community didn't consider it important enough. Apparently it looks like the community agrees that this is a bug :) – Simon Forsberg Mar 9 '14 at 1:08
  • @LowerClassOverflowian That possible duplicate is marked as status-completed, while this issue is obviously not completed. It's likely related, but I wouldn't consider it a duplicate. – Simon Forsberg Mar 9 '14 at 1:15
  • 20
    I suggest to change this message to "Look, a banana! ...Ok try that again now." – Mathieu Guindon Mar 9 '14 at 1:23
  • 1
    I want this! now – gnat Mar 20 '14 at 22:12
  • 7
    I am retagging this (again) because I am really not looking for support here. I don't need help with a site functionality. I know how the functionality is and I think it's a flaw in it. A small flaw sure, but it is still a flaw. – Simon Forsberg Mar 21 '14 at 8:27
48

This looks like a pretty good place to hide a hat.

Congratulations, you've earned the Bolt Start hat. See your profile.

In August 2009 the IAAF announced that from January 2010, a zero-tolerance stance to false-starts would be adopted. Athletes false starting are now immediately disqualified.[7] The following year the rule led to prominent disqualifications at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics: world record holder Usain Bolt was disqualified from the 100 m final. (wikipedia)

Otherwise, I have a few suggestions to replace the offending message:

  • Ready, set, vote!!
  • Look, a banana waffles! ...Ok try that again now.
  • Spawn this message box twice in a row to win a unicorn plush. Kidding. Should be good now.
  • 12
    It's not a bug, it's a hat! – Simon Forsberg Mar 10 '14 at 7:33
  • 1
    For the record: It is no hat. At least not this year :( – Simon Forsberg Dec 16 '14 at 17:33
  • 5
    @SimonAndréForsberg what, you actually managed to get a repro on that??? – Mathieu Guindon Dec 16 '14 at 17:34
  • 3
    Yup. The text bug is still there. No fix, and no hat. – Simon Forsberg Dec 16 '14 at 17:35
  • 1
    I'm un-accepting this answer until it actually becomes a hat. Haven't verified yet if it is a hat this year. – Simon Forsberg Dec 17 '17 at 21:14
25

I rather suspect anyone seeing this will have already seen a dozen variations on it, since they'll have been sitting there impatiently clicking while waiting for the day to tick over.

But if anyone gets it into their head to actually special-case this ridiculously obscure scenario, the only appropriate message is surely,

Click more slowly!

  • 4
    I've only seen the normal "vote again in x seconds", "vote again momentarily", and this one. Just because it happens rarely doesn't mean that it shouldn't be handled properly for when it actually does happen. – Simon Forsberg Mar 9 '14 at 1:23
  • 4
    @SimonAndréForsberg I think he's implying you do a lot of trying to vote at the exact right second instead of reading a blog post or making tea or whatever else it is people do in the oblivion that is waiting until they can vote again on SO, which your receiving the full suite of messages would corroborate, not refute. – djechlin Mar 9 '14 at 1:27
  • 2
    @djechlin Sure, I'm sitting and clicking the button several times, waiting for the moment when I can use my votes again. Since when is it a bad thing to want to vote? – Simon Forsberg Mar 9 '14 at 1:31
  • @SimonAndréForsberg in that case I'm +1'ing this answer. I mean, there's a limit for a reason, and it has to do with the fact that there's things you should be doing besides voting all the time, but if that really is all you do, then yes, Shog9 has a point, you're probably well versed in these error messages anyway. – djechlin Mar 9 '14 at 1:39
  • 3
    @djechlin FYI, I have simply down-voted this answer because of Shog9's attitude in writing the answer. The whole attitude of this answer is honestly not something I expected from a Stack Exchange community manager. All I'm looking for here with this question is to make Stack Exchange better, and I don't see how this answer is doing that. – Simon Forsberg Mar 9 '14 at 1:42
  • 6
    Nothing wrong with wanting to vote, @Simon. But unless you're extremely [un]lucky, you've probably already seen a message that told you how long to wait - and you tried to vote again just a hair short of that. So be honest: you know what the situation is and what to do about it... ;-) – Shog9 Mar 9 '14 at 1:57
  • +1 for the rationality (and common sense). – Ken White Mar 9 '14 at 5:53
  • @Shog9 Sure I know how long I have to wait, but if I just wait half a second less than that I get a funny-looking message with incorrect grammar. – Simon Forsberg Mar 9 '14 at 11:27
  • 1
    @SimonAndréForsberg I think the point is that this is a trivial corner case, and there is little benefit in chasing it down. You told the doctor it hurts when you do this, and the doctor says, "Well, don't do that." We're done here. – Chris Mar 20 '14 at 22:00
  • @Chris Just because it's a "trivial corner case" doesn't mean it isn't worth fixing. I mean, it's just a string... it really can't be that hard fixing. Even a little "dirty" if-else would solve it. – Simon Forsberg Mar 21 '14 at 8:23
  • 1
    @Chris Looking at the votes on this question, it has 30 up-votes and 4 down-votes. So no, we're not "done here". – Simon Forsberg Mar 21 '14 at 13:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .